 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Webcasting Under Threat
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Webcasting Under Threat |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 26 Mar 02 - 12:28 AM casters' gross revenues, including the "revenues" on my tiny (10 listener max) station www.ulyssesaudio.com. I maintain the station for free, with no advertising or revenue source of any kind. This will effectively shut down mine and most other independent internet radio stations. YOU ARE BEGINNING TO SOUND LIKE MAX. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Mar 02 - 04:45 PM And most musicians have always made a living alongside doing the music, not through the music. The same way that people played games and ran races and so forth. And most other enjoyable human activities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: GUEST,DMcG at work Date: 25 Mar 02 - 04:54 AM Dicho: I agree whole-heartedly that all musicians have to make a living. I just think that they actually stand a better chance outside the EMIs of this world in the early stages. Once they have got some sort of a following, they will be in a much stronger negotiating position. I wasn't mentioning garage et al thinking about the physical locations; more than when someone is making music that attracts an audience, it can get going without the multinationals. But if the multinationals want to pay you, that's fine as well! And I agree with everyone else that the biggies who control published music now are running scared and doing everything they can to limit and shut down any outlets they do not control. I reckon they will find that impossible and will have to come up with a new arrangement eventually - it may well take years - or they will not be able to survive themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Gareth Date: 24 Mar 02 - 06:31 PM Dear AnoN Guest - From Airstrip One (read your Qrwell) on PEL thats fine, as lomg as you have a Local Council wot don't give a damn either. Unfortunately the "Jobsworth's" don't work that way. For example, here in the UK, SKY, a Murdoch owned subsciption TV station owns the right to cover live all Rugby Football. Now as a matter of principle neither my aged mother or myself will purchase any Murdoch = Fox = News International publication thus we could not watch the England v Wales International yesterday. Our local Pub - The Royal Oak - in Ystrad Mynach has a TV in the bar. To get a license to put SKY Sports on will cost the Landlord £3000.00 (= US$4500.00) a year. And this is legally enforcable. For the extra trade that this would bring in, it is not a realist proposition for the Landlord. Thus the option of going down to the pub to watch the game did not exist. I fear that any attempt to narrow any form of public broadcasting is a vicious attempt to control for finacial gain, by the big corporations. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Mar 02 - 06:24 PM The PEL thing is a bit more complicated than that. Maybe the most repressive laws are the ones that only get enforced sporadically, because that way we never get up the strength to change them, we just keep our heads down, and anytime they choose they can use them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: GUEST Date: 24 Mar 02 - 05:21 PM This whole CARP thing is CRAP (apologies for being so obvious, but it's true) Same with the English PEL. It's only an issue if you choose to make it one. Go to a pub where they don't give a damn, listen to an internet radio station where they don't give a damn, but most of all enjoy the music. YOU have as much right as anyone. The biggest worry is that you need to ask whether you can do 'this' Get on with it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Mar 02 - 04:52 PM "Really good musicians," albeit not of EMI quality, still have to make a living. I see the locally produced, marginal labels of musicians who perform in the local clubs, which are seldom performed on commercial radio. You know damn well that if they have the ability and see an opportunity to make money, they will take it. This applied to the "underground, garage" music groups as well. In any case, such venues belong to the past in most areas because of licensing and safety regulations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Mar 02 - 04:47 PM This CARP thing sounds very fishy. Does it bave any relevance or authority outside the USA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Bill D Date: 24 Mar 02 - 04:35 PM seems to me, this would put off all but the most commercial webcasting of music. "In order to make cyberspace safe for mainstream stars, we hereby make onerous rules for everyone" bah, humbug! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: DMcG Date: 24 Mar 02 - 04:21 PM Dicho wrote Avoiding all music not in the public domain, arrangements not covered by copyright, cd-tape-lp etc. not produced commercially, might let the webcaster get through without the levy. Doesn't leave much, does it? Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think it leaves a heck of a lot. I think one of the tragedies of the era of recorded music is that too often we value the 'perfection' of professionally recorded music over the flawed-but-real performance of music by ourselves. Few of us will ever play piano at concert level, but many of us can play a bit, rough-and-ready if you like, and that is, I submit, far better overall. Now, I don't expect many people in the US would particularly wish to hear my feeble attempts, but there are plenty of really good musicians who would not be offered contracts by EMI et al for commercial reasons. The whole underground music/indie bands/garage and so forth grew out of people who did not have commercial contracts or high quality recording studios. So I have hope! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Amos Date: 24 Mar 02 - 03:06 PM Collectively? I concur except for the "little bit", McGrath -- I can only assume that's yer Anglo understatement thing coming to the fore!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Mar 02 - 02:32 PM The sad thing is that we now have technology in all kinds of areas which really would make it possible to do away with all this stuff about running a society on the basis of buying and selling and money.
In fact it would be simpler to dispense with all that and run on a free-distribution, take what you need and leave the rest basis.
Collectively I think we are a little bit mad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Mar 02 - 02:16 PM The whole thing is worrying. Avoiding all music not in the public domain, arrangements not covered by copyright, cd-tape-lp etc. not produced commercially, might let the webcaster get through without the levy. Doesn't leave much, does it? It sounds like regular broadcasters who simulcast on the web would be assessed extra based on net listeners. How many are willing to pay the extra? Non-public stations have local advertisers who don't benefit from net listeners. Public stations are close to the bone as it is. People who want good quality don't record off the net; quality is mediocre as already pointed out, and there are often momentary interruptions of one kind or another. I had good CD-RW hardware and software and good speakers installed with my computer but after a few trials and hearing the quality, it is not used for that purpose. Wasted money in part. I listen but don't record. Here in Canada, we already have a rather large levy for this purpose on blank tapes and cds, and soon on disc-recording equipment, etc. It is just a tax grab, because no equitable way of getting the money to the performer or copyright holder has been devised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: DMcG Date: 24 Mar 02 - 01:25 PM ... A further though. I imagine the rationale for different price is that the powers that be think once the music is on the Internet it can be readily exchanged, so the price is to try and compensate for this. Guess these guys have never heard of tape recorders... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: DMcG Date: 24 Mar 02 - 01:14 PM Sorry, Amos, I'm obviously not grasping this. I can see that if a webcast wants to send out Elton John, or the latest pop wonder then they will have to pay rates determined by the artist (or their agent, who will CARP guidelines into account). This seems right and proper, and I would say the same applies to someone like Martin Carthy or any other artist who makes a living from their music. Both the Internet and traditional radio try to count the number of listeners: the only essential difference I can see is that the internet figure is more accurate (but as any Web master can tell you, trying to figure out the number of users from the number of IP hits ain't easy!) If a webcaster hopes to build up some sort of business 'on the cheap' by buying CD's of Elton or whoever and simply broadcasting them while charging for advertising, say, then I have no qualms about that 'caster having to pay a high rate. (Remember also there are forces such as the need to sell advertising that lead radio and other media to be 'optimistic' about the number of listeners it actually has, so the rates per listener may be closer than you think!) On the other hand, if we use the Internet radio for the thing it is ideal for - letting local groups transmit their music to a larger audience and hopefully building a following - then the price is also between these artists and the webcaster and I don't see what CARP has to do with it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Mr Red Date: 24 Mar 02 - 01:03 PM begs the question about Trad and original material. Here in the UK if my songs ever got broadcast Paul McCartney got the residuals at one time based on his buying and registering songs till he had 50% of the catalogue and then could claim all unspecified royalties. Or was it 50%? either way he was making a lot of money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Tweed Date: 23 Mar 02 - 08:01 PM So......internet radio has been doomed from the start then, as it has always had the ability to count the listeners and even the time period that they have tuned in. This must be in preparation for the new satellite music broadcast technology that's just coming out for car radios. Well, hellfire. It was kinda nice while it lasted. Free is good but nothin' that's good seems to stay free for long. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 02 - 07:04 PM The point is not that artists can't forego royalties on works they so designate -- it is that webcasting is beong levied at a rate dramatically6 higher than the same broadcast being done over FM or AM radio -- because it is possible to count use3rs, some eedjit says that's how it orter be done. Radio stations pay royalties for broadcasting a song, too. But at a much lower rate. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Mar 02 - 06:20 PM I can't see how anyone can stop people saying their music is available to be played for free. That should mean there'd be more than enough good stuff for anyone who wants it, and the quality of the music played could get a lot better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: DMcG Date: 23 Mar 02 - 10:59 AM Hang on, let me get this right. There's another thread about the HOBER webcast, saying that it features quite a lot of Mudcatters like Art. So are you saying if 1) Art, or Scorcha or some other Mudcatter writes a song or performs some public domain folk 2) you jointly agree to broadcast it on a webcast which you set up using your equipment then CARP is saying you have to pay them? And what happens if you politely decline? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Webcasting Under Threat From: Tweed Date: 23 Mar 02 - 10:50 AM Terrible news Amos. The only decent radio I can find in my area (south Florida) is on the internet. I've noticed lately that BluesBoyMusic.com no longer comes up. I've switched over at work to WDVX, which is also a regular radio broadcaster from East Tennessee, and if they have to shut down I'll be lost. I think this will only kill off any good unadvertised artists who will otherwise go unheard except in their local venues. Down here there is no selection of stations other than classical, lite (awful)jazz, Nashville cowboyhatpopcountry, Britany cloneradio, and of course the classic rock station where they still play Stairway to Heaven five or six times every day. We need internet radio for it's diversity, but of course that would generate more free thinking and appreciation for other fare beyond the crap that's forced upon us. It's a load of bullshit and pisses me right off.... Tweed |
|
Subject: Webcasting Under Threat From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 02 - 10:08 AM From the politech discussion list:
rom: "Richard Uhl" <ulyssesaudio@hotmail.com& gt; |